You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
General: Prince Harry won't go to Iraq
2007-05-16
LONDON - Britain's Prince Harry will not be sent with his unit to Iraq, Britain's top general said Wednesday, citing specific threats to the third in line to the throne. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt said the changing situation on the ground exposed the prince to too much danger.

"There have been a number of specific threats, some reported and some not reported, that relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual," Dannatt said. "These threats exposed him and those around him to a degree of risk I considered unacceptable."

Clarence House, the office of Harry's father, Prince Charles, issued a statement declaring Harry's disappointment that "he will not be able to go to Iraq with his troop deployment as he had hoped."

"He fully understands Gen. Dannatt's difficult decision and remains committed to his army career," the statement said. "Prince Harry's thoughts are with the rest of the battle group in Iraq.

The Defense Ministry had long said the decision would be kept under review amid concerns for the security of Harry, a second lieutenant, and other soldiers serving with him. The 22-year-old prince is a tank commander trained to lead a 12-man team in four armored reconnaissance vehicles.

Harry would have been the first member of the British royal family to serve in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict with Argentina in 1982.

There have been reported threats by Iraqi insurgents to kill or kidnap the prince, including claims his photograph had been widely circulated among militants.
Posted by:tu3031

#18  So, in a case like this: who holds whose manhood cheap

Manhood has nothing to do with it. Harry at this point would be a liability to his unit. Andrew didn't have to deal with the publicity (which painted a nice, fat target on Harry), nor having the enemy specifically targeting him. All this horseshit about 'yeomanry' and 'manhood' and 'Trafalgar' is marvelous until a whole lot of soldiers start getting killed simply because the Islamosfacists want a royal scalp.

Hopefully the prince will be allowed to see action in the future. Right now it is a correct, if disappointing decision.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-05-16 23:57  

#17  Right. It WASN'T HIS DECISION. Like remoteman said: "He is a huge frickin target and his being there would get more of his fellow troopers killed. Basra is hot and getting hotter." And like I said. Good decision. The royals are prisoners in a very real sense. Sorry Harry can't serve as he desires.
Posted by: ex-lib   2007-05-16 22:28  

#16  So, in a case like this: who holds whose manhood cheap?
Posted by: xbalanke   2007-05-16 21:32  

#15  I swear to G-d, the intelligence level and reading ability of Rantburgers has gone to crap.

It wasn't Harry's decision.

It wasn't Harry's decision.

It wasn't Harry's decision.

Does it have to be typed a few more times, so you chuckleheads understand?
Posted by: Pappy   2007-05-16 21:07  

#14  He won't do what the yeomanry's expected to do.

Damn few do what the yeomanry's expected to do.

/yew
Posted by: Shipman   2007-05-16 17:59  

#13  Cripes Harry didn't make the decision. Everything I've read said he wanted to go and would quit the army if he couldn't. He is a huge frickin target and his being there would get more of his fellow troopers killed. Basra is hot and getting hotter.

If you think handing the terr's a propoganda opportunity on a plate is a great idea you should maybe think again.
Posted by: remoteman   2007-05-16 15:57  

#12  Brave brave Sir General Richard, responding to dire revenge and dire threats. Another not-so-Trafalger-moment to try and live down.
Posted by: Gromotch Bucket9929   2007-05-16 15:56  

#11  Some common sense, finally. His comrades would spend more time guarding him than fighting the war.
Posted by: trenchsol   2007-05-16 15:44  

#10  Prince Albert in the can, I bet Harry is pissed off over this (at least he should be).
Posted by: Captain America   2007-05-16 15:27  

#9  Coward. Even if it was daddy who made the decision. The old TV show Branded popped into mind. Break his sword, rip the badges off his uniform, turn their collect backs to him.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2007-05-16 15:26  

#8  I wouldn't be too hard on Harry. It wasn't his descision. Having said that, if it's too dangerous for Harry then it's too dangerous for any soldier.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-05-16 14:59  

#7  The pussification of the British armee...parades are okay, but real work goes to commoners....
Posted by: Captain America   2007-05-16 14:54  

#6  Well, if Harry doesn't go, I could suggest that Paris Hilton go in his place. This could serve to eliminate the trauma that she is suffering from her jail sentence and her sentence could be eliminated.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-05-16 14:25  

#5  They waited 'til the Queen's return to announce this, I see.
Posted by: Seafarious   2007-05-16 14:02  

#4  I'm with Fred. Why's he even in if he's not gonna do the job? To pad the royal resume, like his father?
Posted by: tu3031   2007-05-16 13:44  

#3  I imagine announcing that he's staying home is also a coup for the Islamic imperialists.
Posted by: eLarson   2007-05-16 13:37  

#2  Lousy decision. He should take the uniform off and never put it on again. He won't do what the yeomanry's expected to do.
Posted by: Fred   2007-05-16 13:37  

#1  If Harry were to get whacked it would be a big coup for the Islamofacists worldwide and would embolden them considerably. Good decision.
Posted by: ex-lib   2007-05-16 13:30  

00:00